Cosmic Law

Jb 1:16, 19 So does this mean that Satan even has control over natural forces? I know that Satan has the power to entice people (v 15, 17), but either God would have to send the fire and wind, or give Satan power over the fire and wind.Initially I skipped this question because I had no idea how to answer it, but after working on a different, seemingly unrelated question, I think I can take a stab at this. First, let's look at this from the perspective of miracles. We know that God runs the universe, but that he does so for the most part based on natural laws, not constant divine intervention. I know this is a very imprecise way of talking, given that even the natural laws are under his supervision and subject to his control (I discuss this issue elsewhere, in my observations on the 2 trees in the Garden of Eden on the Divine Plan page), but I think a common sense understanding will do for our purposes here. So that's what a miracle is -- direct divine intervention. So let's flip that around -- when Satan interferes, would that be an anti-miracle, basically, direct satanic intervention? Doesn't seem like it. This is because "acts of God" -- storms, earthquakes and the like, aren't miracles. They're just a natural part of the earth's "geosystems" (I think I'm just making up this word). So just because Satan cooked up a storm, or wind, as in the book of Job, does that mean that that was anti-miraculous? But even God could do that, does it all the time, and though we call them "acts of God", we don't consider them miraculous. If we don't consider them miraculous, how could we say that Satan had a direct hand in causing a storm or whatnot? So if it's not direct intervention (now don't get me wrong here, because it very well could be, just as God could directly interfere with the weather and we'd never know the difference [actually, this is a bit off-topic, but it's so interesting I can't help myself -- I recently watched a movie, The Imitation Game, about Alan Turing, especially his contribution to cracking the Enigma Code, and at the end of the movie when they've finally cracked it, they realize that they're going to have to use statistics to play God, that is, decide what battles they're going to interfere with, who they're going to save and who they're going to let die, in order to not give away to the Germans that they've cracked they're code. I can't help but wonder if maybe God does the same thing, you know, interfere supernaturally but in a totally naturalistic way. Anyway, back to what I was saying ...]), so if it's not direct intervention, then that must leave it to some other kind of intervention. And I was thinking, what kind? So they say that way down deep, at the quantum level, everything's random. (Again, very imprecise, so please go to the Math page for a better discussion [that is, when I get around to writing it up].) I wonder if that's the level at which miracles start, then the supernatural power rises up to the more macroscopic levels. Of course, God doesn't have to start at that level, but given that I'm not sure if we even know what randomness means, and especially not at a such a fundamental level (even though we throw the word around all the time), to me it's only natural to suspect that something's going on down at that level. On the other hand, given that randomness often needs no guidance in order to lead to order (see the Butterfly Effect question on the same Math page for more background if you're confused [again, when I get around to it]), maybe it's really and truly random down there. Which is pretty weird, since it's hard to imagine that anything could be truly random, or that God would really let things be random. Anyway, it got me thinking that maybe Satan starts working on that level too. So in a way it'd be direct satanic interference, but in a way, it wouldn't, because (I assume) he'd still be respecting the laws of statistics and randomness. He could even interfere in a very small way, by starting off something like a butterfly effect, which would require the least amount of direct intervention. So how much of the bad weather is from nature, how much from Satan? And ultimately, the bad weather, or any weather, is from God.

Even though Isaac physically blessed Jacob, how could this matter, since he actually meant to bless Esau? How would it be possible that Jacob would actually get the blessing? (Gn 27:1-40)

What’s up with the importance of the birthright? Would a blessing or curse actually have worked? (Gn 25:34, 27:33, 39-40) Noah (Gn 9:25-27), Jacob's sons (Gn 48:1-20 [Ephraim & Manasseh], 49:1-27) Does this imply that blessings and curses only work if the one who's blessed or cursed deserves it?

What made God want to tell Abraham about his plans for Sodom and Gomorrah? (Gn 18:17)God does nothing without telling his prophets. (Am 3:7) I can see the reason for this -- to warn us and to be able to say that he warned us, but it doesn't seem that this was his purpose in telling Abraham, since the bible never says that Abraham warned the 5 cities of the plain, nor that he even warned Lot, but an angel came to get his nephew's family.

Why couldn’t God win out over Jacob, a mortal man? Especially since Jacob was old? (Gn 32:24-30) Of course God could win, easily; the real question is why would he choose not to?

Why was the high priest never the leader of the people (except during the time of the Maccabees)? Why did God not set up a theocracy? (And yet, in certain ways, he did, which I won't go into here.)In some ways, I can see why this is the better system. Countries and kingdoms that conflate the two often end up with a system that encourages the state to abuse religion for unholy ends. What we end up with is a severe weakening of the Church, which is really very shameful. We see this in the Byzantine Empire and I think especially throughout Russia's history (even up to this present day) with the Russian Orthodox Church. (See, for example, Why Angels Fall by Victoria Clark, or any good history book on the Eastern Orthodox Church [I can recommend The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the World Today by John Meyendorff and The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy by Alexander Schmemann]). Not only this, but even worse, nations have conflated their own destinies and goals with those of the Church and the Divine Plan, thus making themselves out to be the ones with God on their side, while anyone not of their ethnicity is conflated with being a heathen, and therefore, so the logic goes, easy to massacre. Again, I think the Balkans, Greece, Cyprus and other Eastern Orthodox countries would be a good example of this sort of mentality, even down to the present day. While the Orthodox Church has formally condemned this heresy, called philetism, nonetheless, it especially has been racked by it. Perhaps we might also observe negative effects in this sort of setup with Islam? I can't be sure, my research into Islam having been mostly in the modern radical sort. It only seems that Shariah law, as well as the nature of the state and government in Islamic societies, is such that the secular and religious are far more integrated with each other and work more as a unit than we see in most societies with a Christian heritage. This in itself is an interesting question, and I'll add it to the Philosophy side of this website. (Namely, why did Islam develop like this, and what have been the repercussions?) We can say that the Judges played this role of secular and religious leader in one, esp in Samuel or Deborah, but not necessarily. Many times the judge was corrupt, or at best, not wholeheartedly devoted to God (like with Samson or Jephthah), but for whatever reason, this was the kind of ruler that God appointed to save his people from their oppressors, I suppose because that's the kind of ruler the people deserved. (Is 3:4-9, 11-12). Then we have the interesting example of David, who was technically supposed to be a secular leader, but much more has he become a religious one, being considered one of the great saints of the bible. In fact, about 3 books of the bible are, in large part, devoted to his saga (I & II Samuel, and I Chr). Which brings us to an interesting question of the hypothetical sort: Why did God have the Messiah be descended from a royal line, rather than a priestly one? Or even better, why not both? Actually, the only time God unambiguously endorses a conflation of secular and religious leader is in his Son and the final kingdom, the kingdom to end all kingdoms, that is, the Kingdom of God. Perhaps a theocracy is the best system, at least in the abstract, that is, only if God is at the head of the government. It seems that anyone less can't handle all the power this combination brings, and so God splits the two functions between two different institutions (secular government, and the priesthood/Church). But why should this be so? That is, why should the evil in men corrupt the Church, instead of the saints of the Church being an influence for good on government and society? That is, why do we find that the Church is the weaker influence of the two? Why do we often find that it is the Church that does the will of the state, rather than the other way around? Because if it were the other way around, there'd be no danger in conflating the two, but we find that that's not the case.​

Why would God not answer Saul just because Jonathan had eaten some honey? First, he hadn’t heard his father’s oath and second, it was a dumb oath to begin with. So why would God be concerned about it at all, to the point that he wouldn’t even answer Saul when he was on the brink of utterly defeating his enemies? What’s more, the people were sinning by eating meat with blood still in it. (You would think that this was much more serious, but it's not the reason God wouldn't answer.)What’s more, it’s not like Jonathan was rebuked for what he had done, because the people saved him, so what was God’s point in all this? (I Sm 14:24-30, 32-33, 36-44)

Why were Enoch and Elijah taken away? (Gn 5:24, II Kgs 2:11-12, Mt 11:13) Perhaps they will be the 2 prophets of the end times? Even so, why would they be reserved for then?

Why would Elisha receiving a double portion of the Spirit be predicated upon him seeing Elijah being taken? (II Kgs 2:9-12)

Elisha received a double portion of the Spirit (II Kgs 2:9-12, 13:20), but I don’t see how Elisha was an improvement on Elijah. Furthermore, it was Elijah who was seen with Jesus during the Transfiguration, not Elisha. (Mt 17:3)What's up with Elisha copying everything that Elijah did? Like how they both went to live in the care of women and raised their sons from the dead? And they both saved two widows from being totally ruined. (I Kgs 17:8-24, II Kgs 4:1-37)

What’s up with the Rechabites? They’re like the Amish. Why would God be pleased with their unadvanced life style just because they had listened to one of their ancestors? In my opinion, what they did was unnecessary and stupid. (Jer 35:6-7, 18-19)

How could Satan even offer the kingdoms of the world to Jesus? In what way are they his, in his possession? Why has the world been given over to him? (Mt 4:8-9, Eph 2:2 [Also, why is it worded in this particular way -- "prince of the power of the air" -- which is a bit unusual? In one way, I think it's very fitting, because it gives an image of utter suffusion of the world with this power. On the other hand, it's certainly not an intuitive way of thinking about it.​])

Why wouldn’t Jesus let demons tell others that he was the Son of God? (Lk 4:41) Why would Jesus not want people to know that he was the Christ? (Mt 16:20) Or why would he not want the demons to be the ones to spread this knowledge?

Jn 16:10-11 I don't understand this, but it must be theologically packed."concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged."

Why should Jesus have been comforted by an angel? (I mean, why would this have worked?) Jesus is greater than any angel. He would have had more power to comfort himself than an angel, right? And if that wasn't enough, then why not the comfort of the Holy Spirit or the Father?Besides this, I don't see how this angel strengthened Jesus, since he started praying even more earnestly and sweating blood. (Lk 22:43-44) Likewise, why didn't God announce the birth of his Son to Mary directly? Instead, he sent a messenger. (Lk 1:26-33)

How did Jesus come by water? (I Jn 5:6) Also, how does it testify? (v 8)

Why would God tell us about the thunders, yet not allow us to know what they said? (Rv 10:4)

Why would God want even the first born of the cattle dead, as if they were human? (Ex 11:5) (cf Jon 4:11)

What did Solomon mean by “heaven and the highest heaven”? Does this have anything to do with Paul's mention of the 3rd heaven? (I Kgs 8:27, II Cor 12:2)

​Zech 2:3-4 What’s the point of the second angel telling the first angel what to tell Zechariah, when Zechariah had already overheard everything? Since he could hear everything why not just have the second angel tell him directly?

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.